Why abortion is legal - why it is not wrong, murder or genocide.

reply to post by jennybee35


No, the best moral choice is the driver never getting in the car in the first place.

At least that's the argument a lot of members here seem to have.

Originally posted by jennybee35
reply to post by My_Reality

 

Claiming human life more valuable or important than other life forms.

So, given the choice between saving a human child or a chicken from a car careening out of control, you would choose the chicken? Really? Because it's life is just as important as a human's, right?

A human being would be able to change the world for better or worse, We can interact and relate more closely to each other..So the human life it is. Whereas saving a single chicken may not affect more than a few individuals nutrition levels, Or it could also save a starving child or two.....this is a very tricky subject. IMO its the guilt that matters the most, I wouldn't feel as much guilt if I cause the death of a chicken as compared to that of a human.

The only point I like to make regarding abortion is this.

I dont like the thought of making it illegal because those who are for making it illegal usually have an a sub-clause that states unless the pregnancy is due to rape or incest.

There have been only a few studies done on rape and rape victims. What alarms me is many of these studies conclude that about 35% to 50% of all rape victims lied about the rape when given a polygraph test.

If abortion becomes illegal with the sub-clause allowing rape victims to have abortions, I believe women who are in fear of being outcast by friends/family/religious beliefs will lie about their pregnancy even more and innocent men will be used as scape goats.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Ummm, yeah, not one of those sources proves the beginning of life. In fact, they specifically use terms like 'develop' 'primordium' and 'fertilized', none of which denote life.

It's established fact that a brand new life begins at conception (seriously this is BIO 101 and you can find it in the first chapter of most BIO textbooks), the only debate is about when that life becomes worthy of protection.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Ummm, yeah, not one of those sources proves the beginning of life. In fact, they specifically use terms like 'develop' 'primordium' and 'fertilized', none of which denote life.

It's established fact that a brand new life begins at conception (seriously this is BIO 101 and you can find it in the first chapter of most BIO textbooks), the only debate is about when that life becomes worthy of protection.

No, it is not. A brand new life began billions of years ago in some primordial organic goo, not at conception..

Originally posted by Maslo
No, it is not. A brand new life began billions of years ago in some primordial organic goo, not at conception..

"From the moment a baby is conceived, it bears the indelible stamp of a separate distinct personality, an individual different from all other individuals." Ultrasound pioneer, Sir William Liley, M.D. 1967.

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into existence. This is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." Dr. Jerome Lejeune, genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris. He discovered the Down syndrome chromosome.

"It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception." Professor M. Matthews-Roth, Harvard University Medical School.

"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.

reply to post by SevenBeans


And by natural selection(not a decision made by the potential mother/father) 40% of these unique conceptions will end in miscarriage...

And who pays for the children left to rot in care homes because they are not wanted?

No, it is not right, and responsibility should lie with both man and woman regarding preventing an unwanted pregnancy, but life is not as simple as that, and the life of the unborn child should be considered as it does not seem fair to condem an unwanted and cast off child to a life of potential misery...

I also have to ask if you would consider adopting/fostering a (potentialy disabled) child of drug/alcohol dependent parents who would have opted for abortion but couldn't because of the law and as such hand the child over to the authorities? (and even with the legislation to allow abortion these kids are still born and still cast off and very few people will take them on)

If you're going to force 'morals' on young women to bear a child just to put it up for adoption...

...At least don't also be evangelical enough to make gay people not receive the same financial benefits of marriage to keep your kids alive.

...Unless you're just that "righteous".

Originally posted by destination now
And by natural selection(not a decision made by the potential mother/father) 40% of these unique conceptions will end in miscarriage...

Lots die naturally so it's okay to kill?

Originally posted by destination now
I also have to ask if you would consider adopting/fostering a (potentialy disabled) child of drug/alcohol dependent parents who would have opted for abortion but couldn't because of the law and as such hand the child over to the authorities? (and even with the legislation to allow abortion these kids are still born and still cast off and very few people will take them on)

Yes. Not an issue in the vast majority of abortions anyway.

reply to post by destination now


Good post

Star!

reply to post by HoldTheBeans


It's so schizophrenic. Abortions are legal, but if a woman is pregnant and killed, along with the fetus, murder charges are filed.

Originally posted by aero56
reply to post by HoldTheBeans

 

It's so schizophrenic. Abortions are legal, but if a woman is pregnant and killed, along with the fetus, murder charges are filed.

Not necessarily, it depends on the state, in about half of them feticide is not considered murder.

upload.wikimedia.org...

I find it ironic when people claim to be pro life, yet support denying people social programs that would provide food, housing, education, and medical care; while also supporting bombing other countries and denying people from oppressive countries asylum - not to mention a clean and healthy environment for all.

In other words the very things that support life.

Here's another angle:

A woman is raped and becomes pregnant. She finds out that the baby will not only be severely mentally handicapped but physically as well and will not be able to care for its self, needing constant care. She decides to abort and save it a life of misery. But no! It's illegal. So she has the kid and it's as bad, if not worse, than she was told it would be.

She has no money so applies for assistance. But wait! The very people who made a fuss about abortion because "life is sacred" or whatever also voted to cut assistance for people who need it because everyone should work their fair share and not mooch off the system.
I guess she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut or at least should have asked her rapist to wear a condom. (irony)

a reply to: Skid Mark

but, but, but...
they are committing after birth abortions!!!????????????

like oh my god, we need a law to prohibit them from murdering infants!!! but, but, but... there is already on, and another one that makes it clear that any baby that survives an abortion IS AN INFANT AND DESERVING OF ALLL LEGAL PROTECTIONS GRANTED TO INFANTS!!
not sure just how I am supposed to wrap my head around this but from what I can gather, they are having a fit because the doctors aren't aren't going full speed ahead to provide whatever care is needed to keep that infant alive.

ya know, I hear that there was recently a house committee hearing on the rising drug prices. they had a women testify about how she couldn't come up with the funds for her child's insulin and guess what... our healthcare system murdered that poor child by denying him the healthcare he needed... by allowing the cost of prescriptions to keep skyrocketing to the point where it's unaffordable for too many,, because well ya know, the drug companies need more and more profits to keep their stock holders happy!!!
but here they are, griping because we aren't keeping severely malformed babies alive by any means possible and calling it murder if the doctors AND PARENTS choose not to. but, if we actually did what they wanted, let's say we eliminated their ability to abort these babies, many of which are being aborted before birth, and required doctors to do whatever is necessary to keep the alive. These POS have refused to find a way to bring down the cost of medicines, or ensure that all have decent healthcare available to them for decades!!! They have made moves to cut the funds for special education.
What makes them think that once the cost for the care of these babies has cause financial ruin to the family, that our gov't would be willing to pick up the cost... wouldn't the end result just be that they'd have to turn off those machines and "murder" those children anyways??

a reply to: dawnstar

The hypocrisy is so rich, isn't it? Hilarious how they call abortion murder but not making drug prices so high that people who can't afford them die.